Re: One type for all

["Samuel T. Harris" <sam_harris@hso.link.com>]

Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> In article <1999Jul12.193436.1@eisner>,
>   Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote:
> > Obviously "vacation" is not one of Robert's core
> > competencies... :-)
> 
> Well I am not sure I get that joke, but I am a little surprised
> that no one has chimed in here to give the exact Pascal rules
> from the standard (either one :-)
> 
> The one reply was about anonymous types, which is really quite
> a different issue than the basic issue of whether a language
> uses structural or named type equivalence.
> 
> Robert Dewar
> 
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

I did get a private email explaining that "standard"
Pascal calls for the anonymous types to be treated
as separate type definitions thus removing any
ambiguity of the original lanaguage. Each anonymous
type is given an internal, unique name and named
equivalence is used. 

My usage of Pascal dates to early 1980's which I
suppose was before the "standard" (at least the compiler 
in use was). Not being familiar with any standard
version, my previous post did specify "original Pascal"
since that is the one which was ambiguous about
the anonymous types.

As an aside, one of the attactions of Ada is the
fact that the only versions of the language are
the standardized versions!

-- 
Samuel T. Harris, Principal Engineer
Raytheon, Scientific and Technical Systems
"If you can make it, We can fake it!"